Questions about homosexuality in BSA

[DanKroh 11]

Wow, too much misinformation in tominrichmond's post for me to let it slide on by.

 

"The reply to the original question "why no homosexuals in boy scouts?" is simple: no sane parent would entrust his child to a group that allowed people sexually attracted to him to be in close quarters with him."

 

Actually, homosexuals are not attracted to my son or your son, or any other CHILD. But to follow your reasoning, we should obviously do away with female leaders (at least, the straight ones), because they are the one attracted to our sons, right?

 

"If, as has been suggested here, the scouts change this policy, expect to see a flight from the organization. No, I am not saying that all homosexuals are going to act on their attractions. I am saying that the BSA policy is rooted in common sense and understanding human nature."

 

That's an interesting opinion, one which is shared by others I'm sure. However, my opinion is that the policy is rooted in appeasing the religious conservatives who make up the majority of their constituents.

 

"Aside from this very practical reason, homosexuality is not morally straight conduct. Regardless of what some religion or other may say about acting charitable towards homosexuals as people, homosexuality is literally abnormal-- only one percent of the male population self-identify as homosexual. It is therefore by definition not normative behavior for men. Even denominations that support homosexual "rights" usually do not approve of homosexuality in the abstract."

 

One percent? No, actually, more like 5-10%, depending on your sources. But again, by this reasoning, lots of things which we consider morally straight (or morally neutral) are abnormal. Being left handed (also about 10%). Being an Eagle scout (1%?). You are trying to equate "abnormal" in the sense of being outside the majority with "abnormal" in the sense of pathological. Have you met yellow_hammer yet?

 

As far as denominations approving of "homosexuality in the abstract", the United Church of Christ does (or at least the UCC congregations I've seen in my area). So does the Unitarian Universalits. I think the United Methodists are moving in that direction. Also, were you speaking strictly of Christian denominations, the JCI religions only, or all religions? Many non JCI religions have no moral judgement about homosexuality either way, actually.

 

Oh, and welcome. I'm sure you will find many others here who share your opinions on this subject. Hopefully, you might also give thought to the opinions of those who don't.

 

[fgoodwin 23]

Prairie_Scouter says:The country is split almost evenly on the gay rights issue.I don't think that's the case at all.

 

As I said in the Danforth thread, almost everytime the gay marriage issue has been put before the voters, it has lost by huge margins (the nominal exception being WA or OR, in which it still lost, but by a smaller majority).

 

So, I think there is still a huge majority of people who are not yet ready to embrace the idea of gay marriage. I'm not saying the majority is necessarily right -- but I am saying there is a clear and definite majority. So the country clearly is NOT split evenly over the gay marriage issue.

 

Is the country split evenly over gay rights in general? Well, that's hard to say -- but if it were, I don't see you how can explain the lopsided votes in the various gay marriage referenda.

[Trevorum 24]

It depends on what questions you ask.

 

According to an August 3, 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center,

 

"... a clear majority (56%) continues to oppose allowing gays and lesbians to marry while 35% express support. But nearly as large a majority (54%) supports allowing homosexual couples to enter into legal agreements that would give them many of the same rights as married couples. "

 

see http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=283

 

I'd call that nearly evenly split "on the gay rights issue".

 

 

 

[Prairie_Scouter 10]

As Trev says, it depends on what question you ask, but the surveys I've seen, including the one quoted above, show small majorities do not favor gay rights, but hardly in overwhelming numbers.

 

As far as explaining why gay rights have mostly lost in votes taken, there's actually some pretty solid reasoning on why that's so. Gay rights is an issue that only resonates with a small number of voters in a way that's strong enough to get them off their butts to vote. Those against gay rights typically have done a much better job in these local elections to get their voters out. In a country that can't even get a good number of people to vote in their presidential elections, I don't know that ANY election these days can be taken as much of a mirror of how the general population actually feels.

 

Our country is decidedly middle of the road. The University of Michigan has generated some really interesting maps of voter preference, much like the red/blue maps shown on TV during the election, but in this case using 3 colors. Red and Blue were used for counties that were 70% or more for either party, and then shades of a 3rd color for everything else. They then used this to create a cartogram which really shows how the country is split, or not, actually. A little bit of red, a little bit of blue, with a whole lot of "in between".

[Trevorum 24]

Right, Prairie. Those maps and cartograms may be viewed at:

 

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

 

They are very interesting no matter if you live in a blue, red, majenta, or purple area.

[Gonzo1 10]

It seems that the love that once dared not to speak its name is now the love that won't shut up.

 

Homosexuality is not allowed, atheists not allowed, girls in Boy Scouts not allowed, girls are allowed in Venture.

 

BSA is a private group. A group, any group will NOT be made better by forcing into it a membership segment the original group doesn't want.

 

Members today know this and potential members are made aware of these rules/restrictions. If you can't abide by them, start your own gay scouts.

 

I have a young daughter who will probably become a girl scout when she's old enough. I will not be sending her on campouts when men are present, would you send your daughter? I wouldn't send her with lesbian leaders either, would you send your daughter? I doubt it.

 

 

 

 

[Trevorum 24]

"A group, any group will NOT be made better by forcing into it a membership segment the original group doesn't want."

 

Thank goodness Jackie Robinson and Benjamin Davis didn't listen to that kind of nonsense. Let's be glad that Judith Livers and Anna Mae Hays didn't either.

 

I can't imagine the hate those American heroes had to overcome.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Well-stated, Trevorum. One of the sad things about an exclusionary rule is that it thoughtlessly allows those who are prejudiced to hide behind it - a facade of faithful obedience to that rule. Persons who have broken those barriers in the past had to rise above both the rule and, more importantly, the personal and institutional prejudices.

 

As I have written in the past to those who fear gays in scouting, they are here already...you just don't know about it. The gay scouters I know personally pose absolutely no threat to the boys whatsoever and you will never detect them, partly BECAUSE of the BSA policy. I hope that homophobes will eventually realize that their fears are in vain and their hate is unscoutlike.

[Eagledad 2777]

>>I hope that homophobes will eventually realize that their fears are in vain and their hate is unscoutlike.

[Gonzo1 10]

Apparently, Trevorum and packsaddle don't get it. Of course, in a group where there is a rule prohibiting something (like homosexualtiy), some will defy the rule and hide in the shadows. Sounds like illegal immigrants, but that's another story for another time.

 

Trevorum:

 

If some judge rules that the BSA must allow homosexuals into membership, the BSA becomes weaker, not stronger. While tolerance is a virtue, and I have no real problem with homosexuals, tolerance is not one of the 12 points of the Scout Law.

 

Packsaddle:

It's not fear of them, it's assurance that they shouldn't be there in the first place. Shame on you for not having the integrity and trustworthyness (and list for yourself other points of the law omitted here) for not reporting your gay fellow scouters. It's not hate of gays, I could care less, BSA rules state that gays are not allowed. They are free to exist as they please, however, they are not allowed in this private organization.

 

As I mentioned before, start your own group, join the Campfire Girls, I mean Campfire, they caved in and now admit boys. Maybe they admit gays too, I don't know. Nothing against Campfire, I'm sure it's a fine program.

 

As a recently retired member of the armed forces, I can tell you with certainty that more military members have been dischard since Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy wen into effect.

 

Have a nice day,

Gonzo1

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Eagledad, I see no bad moral behavior. That's simple enough for most people to understand.

Regarding role models, I have often observed a tendency for young people to choose their own role models with variable attention to parental or other advice. Each additional year that a young person incrementally integrates into society is more time during which they absorb more from the reality of society. BSA's artificial exclusion is clearly that, once they see the real world. The young are gaining greater and greater freedom and they are making those decisions more and more on their own. This also relates to the following:

 

Gonzo1, thank you for identifying the hypocrisy of the policy employed by the armed forces (don't ask, don't tell). I agree that it is a shameful deception at many levels. It is no less hypocritical when put into practice anywhere else, including BSA.

 

To respond to advice I commonly hear: I am not a member of law enforcement and no law that I know of is being broken by gays in scouting. There is nothing in the membership requirements that says we must 'out' them and nothing to that effect in the training. Perhaps, if you believe that every leader should be vigilant for objectionable behavior by other leaders, you should instead work to have this wording placed explicitly in the rules and training. I'm sure this would meet with great and welcome acceptance among the membership.

 

Finally, as I have stated before in similar discussions, I'm a member with standing equal to yours. I choose to meet the stated requirements, no more, no less. I am staying. There's nothing you can do about it. I hope you have a nice day too.

[Gonzo1 10]

Packsaddle:

 

The military's don't ask, don't tell isn't hipocritical, it's the law. The military says the homosexual activity in the military is disruptive to good and discipline.

 

When I enlisted in 1982, THEY asked, I said no because I'm straight. If someone was found out to be gay, they were dischared. Nowadays, with don't ask, don't tell, if someone outs himself, he's gone, if he is outed, he's gone, but the military establishments can't ask. Gay people can join the military, BUT THEY MUST NOT ENGAGE IN HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY. The know the rules before joining, even about abstaining from sexual activity. We both know that isn't realistic, but that's the law. I also know that BSA's policy is not tied to the military, but only discussed here for comparison.

 

As for BSA, you know the rules BEFORE joining. Play by the rules. If an exception is made for gays in BSA, and if you're willing turn a blind eye, which other rules are you willing to overlook? Smoking by adults? drinking beer on campouts? How about 2 deep leadership? How about a scout who doesn't say the Scout Oath or Scout Law because he one day says he doesn't believe in God?

 

I agree that there is no requirement to out someone, but I might suggest that a gay adult should be approached by unit leadership and ask the person to leave. I submit the same for an adult who drinks or smokes on outings or in front of you. Drink is not allowed, period.

 

Gays in BSA are not breaking a law per se, but they are breaking BSA's rule. Play by the rules or get out, since you seem to have outed yourself by your comment of "I'm satying and there's nothing you can do about it", perhaps you should reconsider and leave.

 

If you are gay and an adult leader registered with BSA, your standing IS NOT EQUAL with mine.

 

I encourage gay people who want to be scouts to start your own program.

 

Gonzo1

 

[Gonzo1 10]

I meant:

I submit the same for an adult who drinks or smokes on outings or in front of youth.

[packsaddle 753]

Gonzo1, the only reason that you have actually revealed, for me to leave...is that I disagree with you. As I stated before, I conform completely to the membership requirements, no more, no less. It isn't in my job description to perform the function of 'thought police'. As long as I meet the requirements and conform to G2SS, etc. there is nothing else under my authority. From your military experience, you should understand what that means.

 

However, if you think I have 'outed' myself, then in order for YOU to remain true to YOUR own way of thinking, it is now incumbent on you to take whatever action is necessary to inform my council and have me removed. I'm waiting. Heh, heh, or to use those apocalyptic words of 'W', '...bring it on...";)

 

Edited part: Come to think of it, now that you think you know something and are ready to take action, here's a suggestion as to how. Scouter Terry does have access to all of the information regarding identity, etc. You may be able to persuade him to release that information to you for your quest. And if he doesn't release my personal information, you can then accuse him of the same thing of which you accused me before (not reporting the new info), and ask him to leave. Do you 'get' this yet? If you don't make the attempt, under your reasoning perhaps you should leave.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Gonzo1 10]

Packsaddle,

 

If you are indeed trustworthy and meet all requirement, then you must be straight, so don't be defensive. If you are hiding, take of it yourself. If you are straight and support gays in BSA, I disagree completely. It's not so much that we disagree, I've read many of your other posts and agree with many of them.

 

We have anonymity here. I suppose I could go to Scouter Terry, but I don't have proof, no real admission. I'm not in the thought police business, I hope none of us are.

 

Regarding your 'edited' part, I'm not accusing you so much as you alluded to it. You said you're staying. Is that because you'rfe straight or because you're not and are being defiant? If you're straight, great. If you're gay, go. I'm not on a witch hunt, I don't have the time or energy. Remember, I said I have no problem with gays, it's not something I choose for me. I don't care what gays do, it's none of my business. I have no desire to hunt anyone down, If either party so much as says the wrong thing, then the lawyers get involved and that's a mess. Nobody needs that.

 

The bottom line is this:

Gays not allowed.

Atheists not allowed

Girls not allowed (except Venture)

 

I still hope you have a nice day.

G

ps I'm done with this thread,